[NTDP] Goal clarification

"John Zaharychuk" <JohnZ@ameritec.com> Thu, 22 June 2006 20:58 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtWGN-0008Rq-N3; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:58:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtWGL-0008MV-Ll for ntdp@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:58:53 -0400
Received: from 64-30-208-245.dsl.linkline.com ([64.30.208.245] helo=ameritec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtWGK-0003FH-2Q for ntdp@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:58:53 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:58:45 -0700
Message-ID: <64E292383724EA4C84A339DAD98C18F799356C@prime.SBS.office>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Goal clarification
thread-index: AcaWPqbx82ZpTNkRTWSx1DW1YHYGgQ==
From: "John Zaharychuk" <JohnZ@ameritec.com>
To: <ntdp@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3d7f2f6612d734db849efa86ea692407
Subject: [NTDP] Goal clarification
X-BeenThere: ntdp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: define standards for the purpose of scripting of network testing equipment <ntdp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntdp>, <mailto:ntdp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ntdp>
List-Post: <mailto:ntdp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntdp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntdp>, <mailto:ntdp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1369041595=="
Errors-To: ntdp-bounces@ietf.org

Morning,
 
I have read through the introductory details posted by Craig and they
raise a few points that I would like to discuss.
 
The example testbed described utilizes four different devices to
generate the combined test traffic required for the test. Each of these
devices generates a different type (or types) of traffic.  While I can
see a desire to have common commands and scripts across devices that
perform identical functions, I am less clear as to how commonality can
be achieved across different services. The configuration data for a
Voice Call and the collection of MOS metrics is different than the
configuration data for an FTP file transfer and the collection of
throughput metrics. These differences are independent of the fact that
different devices are being used. The same differences would exist if a
single superset device was used. Granted, each device that connects to
the network shares some common network configuration, but it is the
service configuration where the complexity lies. 
 
Maybe the goal is to create a common "form" or syntax for the
configuration data across both services and devices. It could shorten
the learning curve for the tester, but would not eliminate the need to
understand the different services and metrics.
 
I look forward to a better understanding and further discussions.
 
JZee
 

"This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
This communication may contain material protected by the attorney-client
privilege or by state or federal laws protecting trade secrets and/or
Company Confidential Proprietary information.  If you are not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail
to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
e-mailing error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received
this e-mail in error, please immediately notify webmaster@ameritec.com
via return e-mail."

 

 
_______________________________________________
NTDP mailing list
NTDP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntdp